I Affirm that Agricultural, because of its negative environmental impact due to greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution it produces is a negative externality. Thus by economic principles, Agriculture should be taxed in the amount of money that would clean up the amount of pollution it produces, or in the amount that would subsidize a positive externality that removes the pollution agriculture produces.

Given:
In this debate the emittance of greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution are considered to negatively impact society as a whole.

Also this debate assumes that the current subsidization of farming has been entirely dissolved and is further arguing in favor of taxation.

Definitions:

Externality - an effect on a third party (usually the community as a whole) that is not involved in a business transaction.
-positive - benefits the public
- negative - hurts the public

EXPLANATION OF WHY FARMING IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY

Farming is a negative externality because it is responsible for producing about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock. John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution and Diet for a New America, says that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the culprit normally at the center of global warming discussions.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that animals in the U.S. meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste produced, or five tons for every U.S. citizen. In addition to its impact on climate, hog, chicken and cow waste has polluted some 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

We should be taxing agriculture with the cost of cleaning up the pollution in methane gas and other forms of pollutants that it produces or in the amount that would subsidize a positive externality that removes the pollution agriculture produces.

It is governments duty the prevent the citizen from being taken advantge from by business. In this case consumers are paying (by enduring poorer air and water quality) for a benefit they are not receiving. Thus this is considered to be a market failure, or a failure in the way the economy works as the optimal amounts of quantities are not being produced.

By taxing agriculture in the form of x amount of cents per %/pound of pollution produced the tax will be passed onto the consumer. This way consumers will then experience higher prices for goods that produce more pollution. Thus consumers will gravitate towards farmers who use both more technologically efficient and economically efficient forms of farming that produce the least pollution. So in the case of the consumer side there will be a direct incentive to support farming that produces the least amount of pollution. Which will in turn eliminate the most pollution-creating forms of farming. This will force farmers (and provide them economic incentive) to produce the least amount of pollution in the process of farming.

Furthermore the tax money gained from taxing pollution could go towards cleaning up any future pollution being made.

This will effectively eliminate pollution produced by the agriculture industry at the cost of slightly higher food prices (which would only decrease as agriculture technologies (that will after this tax is created be in demand)are utilized and become more readily available that allow farmers to produce more crops/livestock and less pollution)and less farmers employed.

I negate that Agricultural,because of it's negative enviormental imapcts.
I would like to say that i am starting on my opponents case then i shall introduce my own.

There could be no possible way that farming is producing any harmul gasses.
My opponent states that, Farming is negativley externality becasue it is resonsible for producing methane. He only stated that somone said farming is producing methane but there is no possible way that farmin has anything to do with methane.

Here he is stating that the (USDA) reports say that animals in the meat industry produce 61 millions tons of waste each year, but how does it produce waste? There is no solution that my opponent has given that meat industry produces 61millions tons of waste each year.

We should not tax farming.
So my opponent is saying we should be taxing agricultural with the cost of cleaning up the pollution of methance gasses and other forms of pullutants.
He is stating that it's the Gov. responsibility to prevent the citizen from being takin advantage of,but by taxing the gov. is making money fo themselves and therfore they are taking advantage of us.

I shall now introduce my own case

First off i would like to state that Agricultural farming consiting of plants not only helps us with the issue of world hunger but also it helps us with global warming.
Plants have a proccess of photosynthesis in which the plant uses carbon dioxide as a reactent,also providing a product of oxygen.
Statement One: By taxing agricultural farming,we are forcing people to pay money to help prevent global warming.
In wat way is it right to force people to pay money to provide a better world?
By taxing agricultural farming we are putting farmers at risk of going broke which will stop agricultural farming from helping us supply the food we need to survive, but we are also potentially destroying another persons life which is not the American way.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate in which I'm sure will be a good one.

To start off my opponent stated that there is "no possible way that farming is producing any harmul gasses"
"Livestock animals naturally produce methane as part of their digestive process, belching it while chewing cud and excreting it in their waste. According to the Worldwatch Institute, about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock."
SOURCE: http://www.foodreference.com...

He then proceeded to question the USDA by saying "There is no soution that my opponent has given the meat industry produces 61millionstons of waste each year"

The USDA is a valid source, my opponent has presented us with no reason why there credibility should be in question.

My opponent then made a conjecture with no factual backing that the government illegally steals tax money for their own benefit when he stated "but by taxing the gov. is making money fo themselves and therfore they are taking advantage of us." He has provided no sources at all to back up his claims that the government steals tax money instead of using it on the citizens. Thus I will dismiss his claim as being hearsay.

Finally my opponent made four points which I will address separately

1. My opponent stated: "Plants have a proccess of photosynthesis in which the plant uses carbon dioxide as a reactent,also providing a product of oxygen."

Perhaps my opponent missed this part of my first argument: "By taxing agriculture in the form of x amount of cents per %/pound of pollution produced the tax will be passed onto the consumer"

It is in this statement that I denote that my resolution only is for taxing per pound of pollution. Thus if a farmers net pollution being produced is X pounds then he should be taxed x amount of cents per pound. Therefore if any of the farmers crops are minimizing pollution then it would in turn lessen his net amount of pollution which would be factored into the taxation. In lamens terms, my resolution does not advocate taxing forms of agriculture that do not produce pollution and such forms of agriculture would only benefit the farmer by lowering his net amount of pollution

2. "By taxing agricultural farming we are putting farmers at risk of going broke which will stop agricultural farming from helping us supply the food we need to survive."

Anyone who is aware of basic economics knows supply and demand. In a free market if there is a demand for goods they will be supplied. Albeit some consumers will change their habits to buy forms of meat and vegetables that produce the least amount of pollution (due to lower cost) and overall food prices will increase. However this will not stop people from buying food, nor farmers from selling it.

3. "By taxing agricultural farming,we are forcing people to pay money to help prevent global warming."
Yes and as higher levels of greenhouse gases are given to be harmful in this argument, that is a good thing.

4. "not only helps us with the issue of world hunger"
No they have nothing to do with world hunger. The cause of world hunger is poor leaders, disease, unproductive citizens, and corrupt, tyrannical governments. But that argument is neither here nor there.

Since my opponent has failed to refute my resolution, I will await his further arguments and responses in Round 2. Thank you for the debate, and good luck in round 2.

I am going to wish my opponent luck in this because yes, im sure this will be a good debate.

Roadmap:I shall attack my opponents case once more,then move on to my own case.
So my opponent is stating that "Livestock animals naturally produce methane as part of thir digestive process". Making this a natural occurence that we can not control but,then we would hv to do somthing about the animals not the whole idea.

If 61million tons of waste each year then where did it all go? I am aware they do burie it for enviormental impacts but then, there is no large enough place for this waste to go an since neither me nor you see it around your area's, there (agian) is no proof that 61million tons of waste is being produced each year.

I'm sorry for that argument i made a mistake, this is my first debate.

(In this part i am addresing point 2.)
Then if the food prices do go up because you are taxing agricultural farming, your idea is not just for the people for one.
In these hard times where the economy is failing the Gov. should be helping the people with there demand's, not making it harder for them to live a full quality of life.
Addressing point 3.
You see but this is not fair for the people if you are to just let agricultural farming go untaxed, then it will be better for the people and will help prevent global warming at the same time.
And these are the reasons why we should just let agricultural farming go untaxed an left alone.
Good Luck in round 3.

I would like to thank my opponent for his civil manner and prompt responses.

My opponent began by stating
"Making this a natural occurnce that we can not control but, then would hv(have I'm assuing) to do something about the animals not the whole idea."

I'm afraid I don't understand your point? My plan only taxes pollution. The tax would tax the pounds of pollution. It does not matter is the process is natural. Human waste is natural, but that does not mean that everyone forgoes to pay a sewage bill.

"If 61million tons of waste each year then where did it all go"

-Roughly half of the pollution in the Bay comes from agriculture, and half of that comes from animal agriculture, Fox said. Environmental groups have singled out commercial animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, in Lancaster County, Pa., as a major source of Bay pollution.

Fox, in a telephone press conference to discuss EPA's plans to restore the Chesapeake, also said the federal government could expand the areas that need permits for development under the Clean Water Act. The areas would be high-growth sections within the Chesapeake watershed, he said.

The EPA's plans follow a May 12 executive order from President Barack Obama calling for more federal involvement in the Chesapeake restoration effort.

Animal waste is widely unregulated and it contaminates many water supplies.

My opponent then went on again to question the USDA, which is valid source when he stated

"since neither me nor you see it around your area's, there (agian) is no proof that 61million tons of waste is being produced each year."

My opponent as presented us with no reason why there credibility should be in question.

"I'm sorry for that argument i made a mistake, this is my first debate."
I appreciate your apology, however in a debate, you would be best advised to never point out that you make an error in your reasoning. Instead, drop the argument and make new arguments. Emphasize your stronger arguments.

"Then if the food prices do go up because you are taxing agricultural farming, your idea is not just for the people for one. In these hard times where the economy is failing the Gov. should be helping the people with there demand's, not making it harder for them to live a full quality of life."

I agree completely. Everyone demands drinkable water and drinkable air. Currently the people are paying for that privilege through their taxes. However since the taxes are general and not tied to agricultural products that produce the most pollution, there is no financial incentive to buy goods that produce the least amount of pollution. By tying tax to the goods that produce the most pollution you give farmers a financial incentive to utilize technologies and use methods that produce the least amount of pollution. Also goods that produce the most amount of pollution will be bought the least by consumers.

"You see but this is not fair for the people if you are to just let agricultural farming go untaxed, then it will be better for the people and will help prevent global warming at the same time. And these are the reasons why we should just let agricultural farming go untaxed an left alone."

You provide no reasons how it isn't fair? It is in fact much fairer. By not taxing agriculture for the global warming it creates you will be increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (farmers will have no incentive to produce the least amount of pollution and consumers will have no incentive to purchase goods that produce the least amount of pollution) and thus be produce more global warming. You provide absolutely no logical reason nor evidence how global warming could possibly be lessened by leaving agricultural pollution untaxed.

My opponent has provided no evidence nor any logical reasons that refute the resolution. Thus I extend my arguments and urge the voters of this debate to vote for me.

Thank you again for participating in this debate with me, and I would like to encourage you to continue debating on DDO.

I will like to take this time now to thank my opponent for this debate. And yes i am sry hv= have i ws texting a minute before i posted this previous argument.

I'm saying that if the methane gasses are by there own digestive system, then this is a nartural cause that no matter what we cannot prevent. So by taxing somthing natural we are putting the people in a possibly worse situation.

I am saying that if 61million tons of waste is produced each year where could it possibly go?The waste would build up to extreme levles if this was true.
Thank You for the advice
But then going back to my previous argument where "if animals are producing 61million tons of waste each year where is it all goin? Making on my point here that, there is no need to have taxes on somthing that is doing littl to no harm. I have no need to provide a source becasue it is well known that that much waste would build up to extreme lvls if it were true,making it impossible because there is no place that can hold that much waste.

My opponent is providing he people a harder quality of life by putting more taxes on them. Please ask yourself that"Is this really fair to us and others out there?" before u vote. I do urge you to vote Pro becasue taxing agricultural farming will be making it harder for people who maby already in hard enough situations.

I would like to provide thanks to my opponent for this debate for truley i have loved the expierence. And yea he has been quite a challenge for me so agian thanks.

If someone has caused illegal pollution, it is quite ordinary to sue them for it or to extract the fines as the law provides. This is the way oil spills are typically handled. So if it means thousands of law suits, then there ought to be thousands of law suits. There are over 3000 counties in the US, so there are lots of venues.

Assuming that methane is 23 or 24 times the greenhouse effect as CO2, some guy on the web (who hated methane) calculated it was equivalent to 0.79 coal-burning power plant. If the worst predictions of global warming alarmists is correct. 1000 extremely large nuclear plants replacing coal plants would lower the global temperature by 0.1 degree. I research how many coal plants would be replaced by one giant nuclear plant, but let's conservatively guess five. So if all the methane could be eliminated, global temperatures might be lowered by 0.000018 degree. But, of course, the methane is not going to be eliminated. At great expense it might be reduced by ten or twenty percent, so maybe 0.000005 degree might be at stake.

By way of further comparison, the web guy's numbers are also equivalent to about 600K cars, which is 0.1% of the total number in the world. Kilauea, the volcano on Hawaii, puts out more pollution that all the cars in world combined.

See what I mean by quantitative?

Of course every year that passes without global warming diminishes the amount of global warming that might be due to CO2. The latestest ICCP report predicted oceans would rise by nine inches in the next hundred years, compared to seven inches in the last hundred.

Since nothing is currently being done to clean up methane, here is nothing to be paid for.

@Roy, yeah when I put Con in this debate i was referring to the status quo, i have since found out that users on this site use the resolution to base their pro/con choice on.

"Con did not provide data that agriculture was subsidized"
This was in the R1
"Also this debate assumes that the current subsidization of farming has been entirely dissolved and is further arguing in favor of taxation."

"Con didn't provide data showing that there was substantial cleanup being paid for that was not covered by the taxes that agriculture now pays"
Methane gas is not paid for by the taxes that agriculture pays.

"gave no quantitative data"

15 to 20 percent of the world's methane gas is produced by livestock

"If the present pollution is illegal, than the polluters should be sued for the cost."
Are you really advocating thousands of separate lawsuits? Really?

"If the pollution is illegal, then past pollution was tacitly agreed to be born at public expense."
It currently has been, and presently is. My affirmation seeks to change that. Farmers cannot be taxed for past pollution because the quantity is immeasurable and would cause way to dramatic of a price increase in food goods to the point where it would significantly impact the economy.

"The methane business is nonsense, it is negligible. Besides, is the next step to tax humans for breathing? Or only if they exhale."

Methane gas is 24 more times potent than Co2. It was a given in this debate that greenhouse gases negatively effect society.

Con instigated the debate but failed to provide a resolution. From context, we might suppose that the resolution might be "Agricultural should not be subsidized." Pro usually has the burden of proof, but since Con provided an opening case for acting, we assume that Con was actually taking the role of Pro and bore the burden of proof. Con did not provide data that agriculture was subsidized, but it's reasonable to assume that we know it is. Con then advocates taxing agriculture to compensate for the subsidy. But what is the case for doing that, rather than just ending the subsidy?

From context, one might also guess that the resolution was really, "Agriculture should be taxed extra to clean up the pollution it causes." That sounds good to me, but Con didn't provide data showing that there was substantial cleanup being paid for that was not covered by the taxes that agriculture now pays. Con cite instances, but gave no quantitative data. Moreover, why tax the cleanup rather than just ban the pollution in the first place? If the present pollution is illegal, than the polluters should be sued for the cost. If the pollution is illegal, then past pollution was tacitly agreed to be born at public expense. In sum, a very confused case.

The methane business is nonsense, it is negligible. Besides, is the next step to tax humans for breathing? Or only if they exhale.

Pro needs to use the spell checker. His spelling is so bad it rd to understand at times.

If simply because livestock can produce methane gas does not mean we should increase the tax, instead the increase of tax should be used for the landfill and the factories, in fact we should increase industry taxes where methane gases mostly come from. An another fact is even if we don't raise livestock, methane gas would still be here, overall, livestock are also animals.